Gary Hughes Not Returning Next Year

[KingKongvs.Godzilla]

The man's job was to evaluate amateur talent, and he clearly didn't understand why there might be a difference in the odds of a high school pitcher vs. a college pitcher reaching their ceiling.

 

One bad interview didn't make him look dumb. His dumb made him look dumb.

 

Are you sure he didn't understand or is it that his job is to try to beat the odds? The fact is that most players scouted and analyzed will bust, and despite the risk HS pitchers present there are still a great deal of success stories. I think they pointed out that the whole Marlins '03 rotation thAt was so touted was all HS guys.

 

Plus he spent more time knocking going after the idea that teams were ignoring HS players on the whole, which the A's were famous for for a minute (and subsequently backed off when everyone started biting on the college idea).

 

Seriously his job required acknowledging that everrrrrryyyyy young player carries risk. Scouting and analysis is what helps mitigate that risk (as well as a strong development program)....Hughes HAPPENS to lean towards scouting.

 

Honestly the guy probably got hurt most by the fact that te Cubs weren't a very balanced organization under Hendry and the Trib.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

The man's job was to evaluate amateur talent, and he clearly didn't understand why there might be a difference in the odds of a high school pitcher vs. a college pitcher reaching their ceiling.

 

One bad interview didn't make him look dumb. His dumb made him look dumb.

 

Are you sure he didn't understand or is it that his job is to try to beat the odds?

 

I'm very sure he didn't understand. Are you sure you read the interview?

[UK1679666180]

Hughes had more success under Dombrowski than Hendry.

 

How do we objectively declare that Hughes was the one who had the success?

 

By the talent he was credited and the success of the organization/farm systems.

 

To SSR:

 

Its unfortunate it ended like this for him and that people will remember him more for that one article than his body of work, not that I'm disappointed to see him gone. In the right role (in Det) he could be of use.

 

again, UK, that interview was a summary of his body of work.

That's one of the dumber things you've said. You can still be a very good talent evaluator and have those opinions, although I disagree with most of what he said in that interview, he has a history of very good talent evaluation by all accounts.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

What accounts? I keep hearing about his amazing history of talent evaluation. What is it?

[Guest]

The man's job was to evaluate amateur talent, and he clearly didn't understand why there might be a difference in the odds of a high school pitcher vs. a college pitcher reaching their ceiling.

 

One bad interview didn't make him look dumb. His dumb made him look dumb.

 

Are you sure he didn't understand or is it that his job is to try to beat the odds? The fact is that most players scouted and analyzed will bust, and despite the risk HS pitchers present there are still a great deal of success stories. I think they pointed out that the whole Marlins '03 rotation thAt was so touted was all HS guys.

 

Plus he spent more time knocking going after the idea that teams were ignoring HS players on the whole, which the A's were famous for for a minute (and subsequently backed off when everyone started biting on the college idea).

 

Seriously his job required acknowledging that everrrrrryyyyy young player carries risk. Scouting and analysis is what helps mitigate that risk (as well as a strong development program)....Hughes HAPPENS to lean towards scouting.

 

Honestly the guy probably got hurt most by the fact that te Cubs weren't a very balanced organization under Hendry and the Trib.

What hurt him most was his unwillingness to learn about things that he didn't know. I think most people agree that scouts serve a necessary and useful purpose. Their job could be enhanced by understanding and embracing very basic actuarial information used to make analyses. Instead he and others of his ilk thumbed their nose at the very idea that numbers can tell you something your eyes cannot.

 

I will agree that the numbers guys probably didn't help much in the way of translation and education, but baseball is filled with old washed up baseball players who later became scouts, coachers, and/or GMs. It's the ultimate jock fraternity. They don't need nerds telling them things when they can see. All they need to know is a function of their history and vision with their own eyes. Well, they are going the way of the dinosaur unless they learn new things that don't take a PhD to understand.

Edited September 21, 2011 by CubinNY

[UK1679666180]

The man's job was to evaluate amateur talent, and he clearly didn't understand why there might be a difference in the odds of a high school pitcher vs. a college pitcher reaching their ceiling.

 

One bad interview didn't make him look dumb. His dumb made him look dumb.

It was in the context of teams unwilling to draft HS pitchers b/c of injury possibility being increased. I'm sure he knows the differences between the two in both development and arm structure but he would draft a HS arm in the 1st unlike some clubs.

[SouthSideRyan]

Honestly the guy probably got hurt most by the fact that te Cubs weren't a very balanced organization under Hendry and the Trib.

 

I don't understand this point. He was hurt by the fact that the Cubs were a scout heavy organization who mocked stats and wouldn't question what Hughes said?

[UK1679666180]

What accounts? I keep hearing about his amazing history of talent evaluation. What is it?

Leiter, Alou, Kevin Brown, Nen, Grissom, Floyd, etc. He was pivotal in the success of the Expos and Marlins of the 90s. If you don't remember how good the Spos were, look it up.

[mul21]

Honestly the guy probably got hurt most by the fact that the Cubs weren't a very balanced organization under Hendry and the Trib.

 

I don't understand this point. He was hurt by the fact that the Cubs were a scout heavy organization who mocked stats and wouldn't question what Hughes said?

 

That does make sense. If the Cubs were more balanced in terms of using statistical analysis, Hughes insights could have been put to better use when combined with said statistical analysis. Not that it would have made him smarter, but it would have been a proper use of his skills, as opposed to the blindly going with whatever he had to say approach. Some of the guys he liked and may have been his 1a to the guy the Cubs picked may have been a smarter choice and the Cubs may have realized that if they were using multiple information sources.

 

It's like Mike Martz as a head coach. Not a good idea. But, he can be a very useful part of an organization if he has some limits put on his "creativity".

[KingKongvs.Godzilla]

What hurt him most was his unwillingness to learn about things that he didn't know. I think most people agree that scouts serve a necessary and useful purpose. Their job could be enhanced by understanding and embracing very basic actuarial information used to make analyses. Instead he and others of his ilk thumbed their nose at the very idea that numbers can tell you something your eyes cannot.

 

I will agree that the numbers guys probably didn't help much in the way of translation and education, but baseball is filled with old washed up baseball players who later became scouts, coachers, and/or GMs. It's the ultimate jock fraternity. They don't need nerds telling them things when they can see. All they need to know is a function of their history and vision with their own eyes. Well, they are going the way of the dinosaur unless they learn new things that don't take a PhD to understand.

 

Both he and Bane stated that they do just that. That was the whole point they made that the numbers didn't just magically show up in the 2000's, they just went mainstream. Rickey was pushing the numbers 60+ years ago. The Yankees have been running numbers since the late 70's or so. Bill James was publishing his work in the 80's. Teams and the people who worked for them couldn't be completely oblivious to this, even if the ideas just kind of sat on a hot plate for a while.

 

I agree that baseball was a jock fraternity. That said, scouts as a whole are usually the guys walked all over even before the numbers game exploded. Now here they are as the lowly underlings to FO guys who now own high end degrees from big schools who in turn can thumb their noses at them. The nerds didn't need the jocks telling them what should be done either, especially when the numbers said otherwise. That tension was very strong in the early 2000's IMO (iunno if anyone knows or remembers Bill Shanks, but THAT was an extremist scout who went out of his way to not understand the number game and bash it blindly...he worked for the Braves, a highly respect franchise), and you can notice it not only in Hughes' tone but in McCracken's tone. It went both ways, and now we're seeing less of that bs and more respect between both sides. The humanity of the game isn't just going to die out like the dinosaurs...It'd have to be systematically exterminated, which I think was a legit fear that scouts held for a period (da computahs ah comin!).

 

You say it yourself...you don't need a Ph.D to understand the numbers of baseball. Yet teams went out and hired execs from big time schools working on their Ph.Ds to look at the numbers...That would be intimidating to anyone in any field, and it most definitely would create a wtf moment of tension between the new and old.

 

Crap those were some interesting days...

[KingKongvs.Godzilla]

Honestly the guy probably got hurt most by the fact that the Cubs weren't a very balanced organization under Hendry and the Trib.

 

I don't understand this point. He was hurt by the fact that the Cubs were a scout heavy organization who mocked stats and wouldn't question what Hughes said?

 

That does make sense. If the Cubs were more balanced in terms of using statistical analysis, Hughes insights could have been put to better use when combined with said statistical analysis. Not that it would have made him smarter, but it would have been a proper use of his skills, as opposed to the blindly going with whatever he had to say approach. Some of the guys he liked and may have been his 1a to the guy the Cubs picked may have been a smarter choice and the Cubs may have realized that if they were using multiple information sources.

 

It's like Mike Martz as a head coach. Not a good idea. But, he can be a very useful part of an organization if he has some limits put on his "creativity".

 

Exactly. Balance should always be a goal. The Cubs were not a balanced organization in the 2000's, and it's a big part of why they are where they have been from '09-'11. They really lacked the whole statistical aspect...

Edited September 21, 2011 by KingKongvs.Godzilla

[SouthSideRyan]

It's like Mike Martz as a head coach. Not a good idea. But, he can be a very useful part of an organization if he has some limits put on his "creativity".

 

Head coach and offensive coordinator are 2 different positions. The analagous situation is saying Mike Martz needs Dick Vermeil as his head coach in order to be a good offensive coordinator. It's not his fault the Bears offense is bad, he needs a head coach around who stops him from doing stupid [expletive].

[Hairyducked Idiot]

What accounts? I keep hearing about his amazing history of talent evaluation. What is it?

Leiter, Alou, Kevin Brown, Nen, Grissom, Floyd, etc. He was pivotal in the success of the Expos and Marlins of the 90s. If you don't remember how good the Spos were, look it up.

 

I'm confused, are these players he scouted? Because they came from disparate organizations in the minors and were acquired by the GM in Florida, which he was not.

 

Those Expos teams were nice. Floyd and Alou were nice first-rounders, but I don't know that it took scouting genius to find them. The best player on those teams, Larry Walker, predated Hughes' run as scouting director by two years. Nor did the two key rotation pitchers come from the minors.

 

It looks to me like he just had two or three draft picks that turned out well and happened to be in the organization at the same time as a bunch of other talent was acquired, thus cementing his reputation.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

The man's job was to evaluate amateur talent, and he clearly didn't understand why there might be a difference in the odds of a high school pitcher vs. a college pitcher reaching their ceiling.

 

One bad interview didn't make him look dumb. His dumb made him look dumb.

It was in the context of teams unwilling to draft HS pitchers b/c of injury possibility being increased. I'm sure he knows the differences between the two in both development and arm structure but he would draft a HS arm in the 1st unlike some clubs.

 

I'm not sure at all that he knows that. He seemed to be saying that if you scout a guy properly, the risk is identical, because that's what scouts do.

 

His response to the assertion that high school pitchers get hurt more was "college pitchers don't get hurt?" That's a dumb argument.

[KingKongvs.Godzilla]

I'm confused, are these players he scouted? Because they came from disparate organizations in the minors and were acquired by the GM in Florida, which he was not.

 

Those Expos teams were nice. Floyd and Alou were nice first-rounders, but I don't know that it took scouting genius to find them. The best player on those teams, Larry Walker, predated Hughes' run as scouting director by two years. Nor did the two key rotation pitchers come from the minors.

 

It looks to me like he just had two or three draft picks that turned out well and happened to be in the organization at the same time as a bunch of other talent was acquired, thus cementing his reputation.

 

Understatement. Loaded is another word....

 

Is there another way to build a reputation as someone who never became a GM? Who's to say he didn't have some say in who the organization added beyond draft picks? I mean you have to figure that a scouting director has more than one time of year (the draft) where his contributions might be needed...Or maybe he really just is a complete imbecile who kind of lucked into any success he might have had (which can be taken away at any moment anyway since there's no direct line to him and only him there).

[SouthSideRyan]

What accounts? I keep hearing about his amazing history of talent evaluation. What is it?

Leiter, Alou, Kevin Brown, Nen, Grissom, Floyd, etc. He was pivotal in the success of the Expos and Marlins of the 90s. If you don't remember how good the Spos were, look it up.

 

I'm confused, are these players he scouted? Because they came from disparate organizations in the minors and were acquired by the GM in Florida, which he was not.

 

Those Expos teams were nice. Floyd and Alou were nice first-rounders, but I don't know that it took scouting genius to find them. The best player on those teams, Larry Walker, predated Hughes' run as scouting director by two years. Nor did the two key rotation pitchers come from the minors.

 

It looks to me like he just had two or three draft picks that turned out well and happened to be in the organization at the same time as a bunch of other talent was acquired, thus cementing his reputation.

 

Alou was a trade as well.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I'm confused, are these players he scouted? Because they came from disparate organizations in the minors and were acquired by the GM in Florida, which he was not.

 

Those Expos teams were nice. Floyd and Alou were nice first-rounders, but I don't know that it took scouting genius to find them. The best player on those teams, Larry Walker, predated Hughes' run as scouting director by two years. Nor did the two key rotation pitchers come from the minors.

 

It looks to me like he just had two or three draft picks that turned out well and happened to be in the organization at the same time as a bunch of other talent was acquired, thus cementing his reputation.

 

Understatement. Loaded is another word....

 

Is there another way to build a reputation as someone who never became a GM? Who's to say he didn't have some say in who the organization added beyond draft picks? I mean you have to figure that a scouting director has more than one time of year (the draft) where his contributions might be needed...Or maybe he really just is a complete imbecile who kind of lucked into any success he might have had (which can be taken away at any moment anyway since there's no direct line to him and only him there).

 

Yeah, maybe. Maybe. Maybe.

 

But if you look at exactly what can be attributed to him in his roles with the team, the results are good for one run with the Expos (and magnified by things he had nothing to do with), and that's about it.

[NonProfitCow]

Had not read that article before, but the "fear" bit is hilarious.

[SouthSideRyan]

And all this goes back to what UK mentioned a month ago or so about evaluating scouts. Hughes had some successes 25 years ago, and now he's a great scout for life, regardless of any sort of success since then. Once your foot is in the door, you're a "good baseball man" for life.

[KingKongvs.Godzilla]

Yeah, maybe. Maybe. Maybe.

 

But if you look at exactly what can be attributed to him in his roles with the team, the results are good for one run with the Expos (and magnified by things he had nothing to do with), and that's about it.

 

The Marlins, though there's probably a reason that can be stripped down to nothing too.

 

Keep in mind that everyone's success is often magnified by things they have nothing to do with...That's such an cheap and easy way to reduce someone's work to nothing. I highly doubt the guy walked around baseball for 30+ years as some blithering idiot who's whole career and philosophy can be reduced to one interview where he was one of two presenting one side of an argument amongst 4 interviewees.

Edited September 21, 2011 by KingKongvs.Godzilla

[Hairyducked Idiot]

What did he do for the Marlins?

 

He has a case for some of the Expos success, but not nearly all of it.

 

The Marlins? As far as I can tell, he was there, and they spent a bunch of money on players, and that makes him a genius?

[KingKongvs.Godzilla]

What did he do for the Marlins?

 

He has a case for some of the Expos success, but not nearly all of it.

The Marlins? As far as I can tell, he was there, and they spent a bunch of money on players, and that makes him a genius?

 

No one is making that case.

 

I think the vice president for player personnel, his job title with the Marlins, might have had some say of who they went out and got. No, it doesn't make him a genius, but it does paint him as someone who has shown he's a competent FO man who can play a part in building a high end team.

 

So what exactly are the parameters for success then? What title did he need or what did he have to do to get any kind of credit here? From what I'm reading you're saying "sure, he held high positions in organizations who had alot of success while he was there, but none of that can be directly attributed to him in a straight A-B line so he gets no credit at all."

[Guest]

Both he and Bane stated that they do just that. That was the whole point they made that the numbers didn't just magically show up in the 2000's, they just went mainstream. Rickey was pushing the numbers 60+ years ago. The Yankees have been running numbers since the late 70's or so. Bill James was publishing his work in the 80's. Teams and the people who worked for them couldn't be completely oblivious to this, even if the ideas just kind of sat on a hot plate for a while.

 

I agree that baseball was a jock fraternity. That said, scouts as a whole are usually the guys walked all over even before the numbers game exploded. Now here they are as the lowly underlings to FO guys who now own high end degrees from big schools who in turn can thumb their noses at them. The nerds didn't need the jocks telling them what should be done either, especially when the numbers said otherwise. That tension was very strong in the early 2000's IMO (iunno if anyone knows or remembers Bill Shanks, but THAT was an extremist scout who went out of his way to not understand the number game and bash it blindly...he worked for the Braves, a highly respect franchise), and you can notice it not only in Hughes' tone but in McCracken's tone. It went both ways, and now we're seeing less of that bs and more respect between both sides. The humanity of the game isn't just going to die out like the dinosaurs...It'd have to be systematically exterminated, which I think was a legit fear that scouts held for a period (da computahs ah comin!).

 

You say it yourself...you don't need a Ph.D to understand the numbers of baseball. Yet teams went out and hired execs from big time schools working on their Ph.Ds to look at the numbers...That would be intimidating to anyone in any field, and it most definitely would create a wtf moment of tension between the new and old.

 

Crap those were some interesting days...

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here?

 

Guys like Gary Hughes are intrenched in baseball. They are the establishment. There still are very few teams who have embraced "new" ideas. It happens that those that have are the most successful (with the exception of the Phillies). People like to point out that Boston and NYY have the most money too. But Detroit and Tampa don't have the money and they've put together pretty good talent.

 

Owners who want to win are going to continue to pursue guys who are successful to run their franchises and those guys will be the ones who embrace and understand wOBA and other "new" metrics. People like Hughes will become less and less valuable. Humanity or whatever you want to call it is sentimental BS that people like Hughes cling to when they feel threatened.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

He could be a scouting director for a really long time draft the foundation of a winning team (partial credit for Montreal).

 

He could be a GM and bring in the pieces of such a team via free agency and the draft.

 

"He was there and they were good" isn't enough to make up for the proven dumbness from the interview.

 

And it's not as if being on the Marlins when he was is all that impressive. They were a bad team that bought one 92-win season and won the playoff coinflips.

[SouthSideRyan]

Yeah, maybe. Maybe. Maybe.

 

But if you look at exactly what can be attributed to him in his roles with the team, the results are good for one run with the Expos (and magnified by things he had nothing to do with), and that's about it.

 

The Marlins, though there's probably a reason that can be stripped down to nothing too.

 

Keep in mind that everyone's success is often magnified by things they have nothing to do with...

 

Right, so a good way to get a grasp on a front office member's opinions is to listen to an interview of some sort with him.